Hard Work – not the Answer to ICO Delays?
On 2 July 2026, the Information Commissioner’s Office wrote to confirm that one of my Freedom of Information complaints (W3K7) had been accepted. The letter advised that complaints were then being assigned for investigation approximately seven months after receipt, adding “We are working hard to reduce this timeframe.”
On 21 July 2026, I received another ICO case-acceptance letter (M8S3) The position had changed, their letter advised “The ICO is receiving record volumes of complaints and is currently assigning cases for investigation approximately nine months after their date of initial receipt.”
Accompanied by ‘We are working hard to reduce this timeframe” and:
- If you can’t wait, we understand. You can withdraw this complaint at any time, just let us know.
The estimated delay had increased by two months in less than three weeks. Yet the assurance is exactly the same. It is difficult not to admire the optimism.
And the apparent solution to an intolerable delay is for the complainant to go away. That may reduce the caseload. It does not improve access to justice.
Nine months merely to begin
The nine-month estimate does not appear to mean that a complaint will be concluded within nine months. It means that the complaint may be assigned to a caseworker after approximately nine months.
The investigation, representations, consideration and final outcome follow after that. The full Freedom of Information journey may therefore look something like this:
- a request is submitted;
- the public authority has 20 working days to respond;
- an internal review may add another 20 working days, or more;
- the complaint is then submitted to the ICO;
- the complaint waits approximately nine months to be assigned;
- the investigation then begins; and
- an outcome is eventually issued.
From the original request to the start of the ICO investigation, the period may already be approaching a year.
The obvious question is how much longer is then required before the requester receives an enforceable outcome.
The information may still exist – but its value may not
Freedom of Information is often discussed as though disclosure remains equally useful whenever it eventually occurs. That is not always true. Information may relate to:
- a current public policy;
- an emerging operational failure;
- expenditure that is still capable of scrutiny;
- a live consultation;
- a current public controversy;
- statistics being used in public debate; or
- a system that remains capable of correction.
A disclosure made a year or more later may still be historically interesting. It may no longer be operationally useful.
That distinction matters. Delayed information can become neutralised information.
The vehicle-theft example
We are presently preparing theft figures obtained through 44 constabulary Freedom of Information requests. The purpose is to compare police-recorded vehicle-theft data across forces and make the information publicly accessible.
Most constabularies provided usable responses. One did not.
Its response was sufficiently unhelpful that there were reasonable grounds to pursue the matter further.
In another regulatory environment, an internal review followed by an ICO complaint might have been the appropriate course. But the practical question had to be asked:
What would pursuing it achieve?
The information concerned 2025 vehicle thefts. By the time an ICO complaint was assigned for investigation, the 2025 data could already be a year out of date. I would then be seeking 2026 figures while still arguing about whether the 2025 figures should have been disclosed.
The delay therefore affected more than convenience. It affected whether exercising the right was worthwhile.
A system that rewards delay
This produces an uncomfortable outcome. A public authority can provide an incomplete response, raise unnecessary obstacles or refuse information. The requester can challenge the decision correctly and promptly.
The authority may nevertheless retain the practical benefit of its position for a year or longer.
Even where the ICO ultimately finds for the requester, the information may arrive after the relevant debate, publication or policy opportunity has passed. The authority may have been legally wrong but practically successful.
That cannot be ignored.
Are authorities using the backlog?
It would be wrong to suggest that every refusal is deliberately designed to exploit ICO delay. Many Freedom of Information officers work carefully and constructively under pressure.
But public authorities are aware of the regulatory timetable. They know that an internal review followed by an ICO complaint may take many months. They also know that some requesters will abandon a challenge once the information is no longer timely.
The present system therefore creates a risk that poor decision-making is encouraged rather than corrected.
An authority does not necessarily need to establish that its refusal was lawful. It may only need to place enough hurdles in the way for the requester to conclude that the process is no longer worth pursuing.
That is the Freedom of Information equivalent of kicking the ball into the long grass.
What is driving the increase?
The ICO says it is receiving record volumes of complaints. That raises further questions rather than answering them.
- Are complaint numbers increasing because more Freedom of Information requests are being made?
- Are public authorities refusing a greater proportion of requests?
- Are internal reviews taking longer or resolving fewer disputes?
- Are complaints becoming more complex?
- Has the ICO lost experienced staff?
- Has the number of caseworkers increased in line with complaint volumes?
- How many complaints remain unassigned?
- How old is the oldest unassigned complaint?
- How long does an investigation take after assignment?
And what changed between 2 July and 21 July 2026 to increase the estimated assignment delay from seven months to nine?
The ICO may indeed be working hard. But “working hard” is not a measurable outcome. Complaint volumes, staffing levels, allocation dates and completion times are.
A Freedom of Information request about Freedom of Information
I have therefore submitted a Freedom of Information request to the ICO seeking basic information from January 2023 onwards. The request seeks:
- complaint-level data showing when each complaint was received, assigned and concluded;
- the public authority concerned;
- the type or category of complaint;
- the outcome;
- monthly staffing headcount and full-time-equivalent figures;
- the records supporting the ICO’s published waiting-time estimates; and
- the plans, targets and resource assessments intended to reduce the backlog.
The request makes clear that I am not seeking complainants’ identities or free-text complaint narratives.
It also allows any field that is not readily retrievable to be excluded rather than used as a basis for refusing the request under the cost limit.
The objective is simple. If the delay has grown from seven months to nine months in less than three weeks, the public is entitled to understand why.
A right without a timely remedy
The Freedom of Information Act has not ceased to exist. Requests can still be made. Internal reviews can still be sought. Complaints can still be submitted. Decision notices will still eventually be issued.
But a statutory right is weakened when the remedy for an unlawful refusal arrives after the information has lost much of its purpose. The danger is not simply that requesters must wait, it is:
- delay changes institutional behaviour.
- requesters become less likely to challenge
- authorities become less exposed to timely scrutiny.
Poor responses become more likely to achieve their intended effect, regardless of whether they were legally sustainable. That should concern anyone who relies upon Freedom of Information – not merely journalists, campaigners or persistent requesters.
The ICO’s latest letter says it is working hard to reduce the timeframe. The public now needs more than reassurance. It needs the data … information.
